[geordief (OP)]

Specifically where he seems to claim that the first stars were formed at the intersections of the filaments of Dark Matter.

Is this accepted and established science?

Apart from that I was quite impressed by his description of DM.Quite matter of fact  and no theatrics,in fact as if it was pretty well understood apart from not being observed with em radiation

Of course Dark Energy ,which hasn't  come up yet in his new series is a different kettle  of fish  and rather more startling imo.

Out of secondary interest I was going to post this on one of the other forums I post in ,scienceforums.net but one of the mods there  from San Diego,I think had a public run in with Brian Cox some years ago and it might have been a red flag to a bull
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64562-a-quick-glance-at-brian-cox-is-full-of-it/page/2/#comments

[evan_au]

the first stars were formed at the intersections of the filaments of Dark Matter

Since we can't directly observe the distribution of Dark Matter, and we can't directly observe the first stars, this can't be an observed thing, yet. But this theory does produce realistic-looking models of today's universe, in computer simulations.

As I understand the concept, Dark Matter (which is far denser in the universe than "normal" matter) would have attracted itself and normal matter into denser aggregates, resisting the general expansion of the universe.
- At these denser points in space, the first galaxies (containing the first stars) would have formed.

Hopefully, with the James Webb infra-red telescope, we should be able to see some of these earlier galaxies, and get some better observational data to support this standard model of galaxy formation.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament#Filaments

PS: If Dark Matter is far denser in the universe than "normal" matter, which one is truly "normal"?